Mailing-List: contact dev-help@commons.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Commons Developers List" <dev@commons.apache.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <5696F0D7.5070804@gmail.com>
 <CACZkXPwYL8OrOvO2nwQZO8-L9Mkc7AMgcGWwjrOm3grVUVft=w@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CACZkXPwYL8OrOvO2nwQZO8-L9Mkc7AMgcGWwjrOm3grVUVft=w@mail.gmail.com>
From: James Carman <james@carmanconsulting.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2016 13:20:53 +0000
Message-ID: 
 <CALznzY6vQa84hFKTV3qnx-Fp40iMUrGjWBF3VSoPhCK19FDQ5w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [math] TLP
To: Commons Developers List <dev@commons.apache.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e89a8f2344d95a1a0e05295f4666

--e89a8f2344d95a1a0e05295f4666
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

You didn't really register a vote here, Gary.  I take it this is a -1
against moving TLP?

On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 8:24 PM Gary Gregory <garydgregory@gmail.com> wrote:

> I like having [math] in Commons. There are other multi-module projects in
> Commons, that's not an issue IMO, just good project design.
>
> My main worry is more on the overall health of Commons or perception that
> [math] is "leaving" Commons, the more eyeballs on Commons the better.
>
> Gary
>
> On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 4:50 PM, Phil Steitz <phil.steitz@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I would like to propose that we split [math] out into a top level
> > project at the ASF.  This has been proposed before, and I have
> > always come down on the side of staying in Commons, but I am now
> > convinced that it is a good step for us to take for the following
> > reasons:
> >
> > 0) We have several committers who are really only interested in
> > [math], so being on the Commons PMC does not really make sense for them
> > 1) The code base has swollen in size to well beyond the "small sharp
> > tools" that make up the bulk of Commons
> > 2) We are probably at the point where we should consider splitting
> > [math] itself into separately released subcomponents (could be done
> > in Commons, but starts smelling a little Jakarta-ish when Commons
> > has components with subcomponents).
> >
> > The downsides are
> > a) [newPMC] loses Commons eyeballs / contributors who would not find
> > us otherwise
> > b) Migration / repackaging pain
> > c) Overhead of starting and managing a PMC
> > d) Other Commons components lose some eyeballs
> >
> > Personally, I think the benefits outweigh the downsides at this
> > point.  New better tools and ASF processes have made b) and c) a
> > little less onerous.  I don't think d) is really a big problem for
> > Commons, as those of us who work on other stuff here could continue
> > to do so.  It is possible that a) actually works in the reverse
> > direction - i.e., we are easier to find as a TLP.
> >
> > What do others think about this?
> >
> > Phil
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
> <http://www.manning.com/bauer3/>
> JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/>
> Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/>
> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
> Home: http://garygregory.com/
> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
>

--e89a8f2344d95a1a0e05295f4666--